During the meeting, the commission reviewed photos of the retaining wall and the stairs, engaging in a debate over whether an emergency certification should have been sought for the initial repairs. The lack of a silt fence—a measure to prevent sediment from entering waterways during construction—was also a subject of concern. Ultimately, the commission determined that the work would need to be performed again, this time with the appropriate permits.

Another topic of discussion was a complaint regarding a dock on Grand View Street that was allegedly creating a navigational hazard and safety risk to swimmers. The property owner and the commission deliberated on a solution, which included the possibility of rotating the dock to mitigate the issue. The discussion also touched on the number of boats permitted at the dock and the impact of the dock’s length on neighboring properties. There was a technical examination of the dock’s positioning relative to property lines, as well as a mention of the harbor master’s authority in identifying and addressing navigational hazards.

Adding to the agenda, the commission had a dialogue about a potential invasive species issue. They discussed hydrilla management and treatment, including an assessment process and the potential ecological impacts. The commission considered the involvement of different organizations in the effort to control this invasive aquatic plant, which could threaten local ecosystems if left unchecked.

Further, the commission engaged in a conversation with a contractor, Normandy Inc, who was purported to have made changes without the required approvals. Plans were made to send a letter to the contractor to resolve the issue. This was part of a broader discussion on local permitting program amendments and the need for a clearer definition of “commercial property.” The commission expressed their intention to seek additional input on these proposed amendments.

The meeting also covered logistical matters, such as a planned site visit for the South Pond Association and updates on the LPP contract with Suffield. A property dispute involving a drainage pipe was discussed, with some disagreement over whether a site visit was necessary to ascertain property lines and the potential role of the select board in the matter.

With respect to community activities, the commission briefly touched on the Memorial Day Parade preparations. In terms of property access, a request was made for permission to use a property for stargazing activities, which was discussed among the commission members.

The commission also dealt with ongoing projects and potential wetland violations. They discussed a subdivision request for an extension of order conditions and updates on various projects. Regarding the wetland violations, efforts were being made to communicate with the concerned parties to obtain updates on the situations. Additionally, there was a conversation about a dock that had not been fully removed from a lake, with the commission working towards a resolution to prevent potential liability issues in the future.

Lastly, the commission planned for a significant site visit in early June, with participation from the select board, a neighbors’ association, and commission members. There was some ambiguity regarding the visit’s purpose, particularly concerning the state boundary and the necessity of a survey for precise delineation. The commission emphasized that the determination of state lines was beyond their jurisdiction and suggested involving state authorities to address the concerns.